Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6947
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI, J
SMT. ARSHI – Appellant
Versus
SMT. BISMILLAH BI – Respondent
MISC. PETITION No. 3564 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Aashay Jain
For the Respondents: Shri Shadab Khan, Shri Mutahir Ahmed Khan
Eviction of senior citizens from their property must respect their ownership rights and cannot be arbitrarily decided based on unsupported claims.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 2(h) and 16 - Eviction proceedings involving senior citizens - Petition filed against Orders of Additional Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer dismissing eviction appeal - Authorities failed to consider evidence and purely relied on oral submissions - Ownership and rights of senior citizens must be upheld. (Paras 1, 4, 14)
(B) Jurisdiction and Powers of Authorities - The purpose of the Act includes providing maintenance and housing for senior citizens - Summary procedure for eviction is valid as long as it observes the rights of property and respective claims under related statutes. (Paras 1, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of harassing the respondent (senior citizen), who seeks possession of her property from her granddaughter-in-law after alleging domestic violence by her grandson. Legal battles resulted in an application for her eviction under the Act of 2007. The appeal against the order was summarily dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The order directing the petitioner to vacate was upheld as lawful, highlighting the right of the senior citizen to reclaim property without being deprived of her rights by any degree of family relation.
Issues: Key questions concern the scope of eviction under the Senior Citizens Act versus the rights of the granddaughter-in-law as tenant or otherwise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the need to protect the rights of senior citizens under the Maintenance Act, emphasizing that eviction proceedings were valid and should reflect just and equitable considerations based on established law.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction proceedings can arise under the senior citizens act. (Para 1) |
| 2. eviction based on owner's rights. (Para 2 , 3) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 16 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 3564 of 2025 SMT. ARSHI Versus SMT. BISMILLAH BI Appearance:
Shri Aashay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shadab Khan with Shri Mutahir Ahmed Khan, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, Indore in Case No.0003/Appeal/2025-26, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules made thereunder (in short ‘the Act of 2007’) has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Juni, District Indore in Case No.0186/B-121/2024-25 on an application filed by the respondent directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the respondent.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent is aged about 67 Signature Not Verified years and fall under definition of senior parents, as per definition contained in Section 2(h) of the Act of 2007. She is owner of the house/residential property situated at 92, Tanjim Nagar, Khajrana, Indore. Farhan i.e. grandson of the respondent entered into marriage with the petitioner and out of their wedlock, a son namely, Arshan was born, and all are currently residing together at the aforesaid residential house. After sometime, Farhan and his parents started harassing the petitioner demanding dowry and also deserted the petitioner and her 02 years old son Arshan and therefore, on 28.11.2024, a complaint of domestic violence was made at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore and also an application under Section 125 of Code of Cr.P.C. for maintenance was preferred. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered vide Crime No.202/2024 against the family members of the respondent i.e. Grandson Farhan, Son Rafique and Daughter-in-law Chaand Bi and a Criminal Case RCT No.11307/2024 has been registered again them for the offence punishable u/S 85, 115(2), 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short "the BNS") alongwith Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After lodging of FIR and criminal case, in the month of January, 2025, the respondent preferred an application under the provisions of the Act of 2007 before the competent authority i.e. Sub- Divisional Officer, Juni, Indore for eviction of the petitioner and her minor child, who is also great grandson of the respondent.
3. On the said application, the competent authority registered a case bearing No.0186/B-121/2024-25 and summons were issued to the petitioner, her father and brother, on which they appeared before the authority and made Signature Not Verified written submissions alongwith documentary evidence. Learned authority specifically stating that she is a "pardanashin lady" and the aforesaid property is her shared household where she last resided with her husband, her minor child and as the respondent has claimed that the aforesaid house was given on rent to her husband Farhan, the petitioner has no objection if the respondent wants to reside in the said house alongwith them. It was also stated that father and brother of the petitioner are not illegal occupants whereas they only visit her when needs as she is a "pardanashin lady". The petitioner has also produced documents regarding other properties of respondent establishing that she also has alternate means to reside.
4. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Juni, Indore, without taking any documentary evidence and also without conducting any enquiry, solely relying on the oral evidence
